It's like they equate any redistribution of wealth as socialism. Socialism is social ownership of the means of production, not redistribution of wealth (though

It's like they equate any redistribution of wealth as socialism. Socialism is social ownership of the means of production, not redistribution of wealth (though that's usually a part of it). You can have socialism with unequal redistribution, that's not a fundamental requirement (requirement is that the people are involved in the redistribution process). I'm guessing they use it because the public doesn't really understand the term. It's like "communism" was anything that happened in Asia that related to the USSR and "socialism" is anything the Democrats want that they don't, when it's more correct to say that the stuff that happened in Asia was socialist (under a communist ideology), and the stuff Democrats want is progressive (shifting taxes more toward the rich) as opposed to regressive (shifting taxes more toward the poor). However, "progressive" is too close to "progress" and obviously Republicans don't want to be seen even more as "going backwards", and that's certainly the message you get from the left. I just wish politics focused on the pros and cons of a policy, not on name calling and getting support because the other side is "worse". I like a lot of policies from both sides of the aisle (and likewise hate a lot from both), and I just want to know why a candidate supports a given policy and whether they've put in the time to know whether it would help or hurt their constituents (rather than party image/unity).